But since we haven't mapped the human thought process to a comprehensive model which proves that, your statement is unjustified.

Also, you haven't rigorously defined exactly what 'logic'. Even if we could represent human inferential techniques in a strict and comprehensive model, it wouldn't change the fact that all arguments relating to "human affairs" must ultimately rest on a value judgment.

You've never adequately defended your thesis against this issue.

What is logic? We know that certain laws of mathematics lead to properly functioning formulas.

In logic we know that certain procedures lead to valid arguments, and others to invalid. Respectively, we call the former logical in colloquial terms and the latter illogical.

Thus logic is the proper model for objective reasoning.

We know enough about logic to solve the most basic problems of life and even complicated problems of mathematics, physics and philosophy.

We know enough about logic to properly solve problems concerning human affairs. Because we can apply objective reasoning to human affairs, we need not make the decisions with respect to human affairs on whim, or value judgment.

There is no doubt that value judgment has something to do with human affairs, but it must not be pure value judgment. In other words, we can logically analyze our likes and dislikes, see if they need to be changed or acted out upon, and if so how we go about both. We need not just act out on our passions because we are far more rational than that.

Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin

I totally disagree with this.

____________________

statement: No human being can live beyond the age of 165 years.

counter-statement: No human being has ever lived past the age of 164 years.

____________________

We haven't come up with good systems to account for why we intuitively feel that the counter-statement is a good defeater for the statement. Also, use of probability and Bayesian systems runs into the Lottery Paradox and sundry other issues.

You're also not taking into account major breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, whose revelations about consciousness and the time-space continuum are revolutionizing the way we think about how human thought interacts with the world and which modes of reasoning are the best... particularly since on a Planck plane many of our most cherished basic laws of logic (like the law of non-contradiction) are not universally valid.

To be fair, quantum physicists weren't the first to discover this... Nagarjuna expounded on the tetralemma back in the 1st millennium. There were others too...
_________________________

I am even more lost now.

I do not see the relevance of any of this to the notion that we can figure out some things with logic.

In order to know why exactly no human being has lived over 165 requires that we collect the factual information. This does nothing to vitiate the logical form in itself.

Inaccurate information has little to do with invalidity, or only with unsoundness. Arguments that we deem to be sound today can be deemed unsound later, but this does nothing to tell us that logic is an unreliable method of investigation. For sound argument, it is only a matter of taking care of attributes external to reasoning in itself.

Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin

We haven't come up with good systems to account for why we intuitively feel that the counter-statement is a good defeater for the statement. Also, use of probability and Bayesian systems runs into the Lottery Paradox and sundry other issues.

This is the one that I find most puzzling of all. It is called laws of thought. Laws of proper reasoning, or logic. This is the law of non-contradiction, it is one of the laws of thought.

I either have a watch around my arm or I do not. I cannot both have it not and have it. What could be easier to prove?

"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

If Thinking is done soundly, being affected by Feelings is not relevant. What we have is the objective logical form with which you must check in with to see if your reasoning is sound. If your emotions threw you off the rails, you could see where you've made the error by virtue of the objective formula, and therefore will be forced to redo the thought process.

But you seem to have forgotten that even Thinkers have it in them to be completely irrational and dumb. If emotions had blinded them and they had not enough Feeling, they wouldn't realize that they should step down.

We seem to have gotten slightley off course here. I was not trying to establish t vs f. What I was trying to understand is how someone can put feeling over thought without seeing themselves as selfish or immature.

I stated my thoughts because I was hoping if you understood how I got there you may be able to find some thread of logic that could explain the not so dark side of feelings. Instead I was barraged with various well youre no better statements rather than arguments for the use of feeling dominace over thought further enhancing my conclusions that feelings distort situations.

it is said that ENTPs do not understand feelings in themselves or others and I think that rings true to me. But I see that when circumstances are personalized the view from the outside is distorted an it inhibits the making of a true value judgment. Or what is best for all in the overall long and short of it. When feelers enter the picture its like they are tampering with evidence or demanding personalization that is not my responsibility. Hence the selfish nature of feelers.

When we are small we often react off of instinct or feeling. As we develop our thought process over rides and refines such natures. Just because giving a child an entire box of cookies to eat makes them happy it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Thought has to override desires or feelings. That is part of growing up hence the immature factor.

I've defaulted to "I feel like it" mostly in situations where I've spent over half an hour trying to explain it and the other party just not getting it. At that point frustration kicks in and the mentality of "why bother" switches on.

Dreams are best served manifest and tangible.

INFP, 6w7, IEI

I accept no responsibility, what so ever, for the fact that I exist; I do, however, accept full responsibility for what I do while I exist.

When we are small we often react off of instinct or feeling. As we develop our thought process over rides and refines such natures. Just because giving a child an entire box of cookies to eat makes them happy it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Thought has to override desires or feelings. That is part of growing up hence the immature factor.

There's also mature Feeling.

Feeling doesn't mean doing everything an F "feels like doing".

(Personally... my Feeling function very, very often prevents me from hurting others and/or acting in a selfish way, because my own selfishness would make me feel very bad. On the other hand, it makes me feel happy and content when I do something "good".

I must admit I skipped most of the posts on this thread because BW came to offer his view again.. anyhow...

Originally Posted by ThatGirl

We seem to have gotten slightley off course here. I was not trying to establish t vs f. What I was trying to understand is how someone can put feeling over thought without seeing themselves as selfish or immature.
...

When we are small we often react off of instinct or feeling. As we develop our thought process over rides and refines such natures. Just because giving a child an entire box of cookies to eat makes them happy it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Thought has to override desires or feelings. That is part of growing up hence the immature factor.

I see what you mean, basically, but as people have said you tend to focus on the negative side of feeling judgment. Other problem with what you said above is that you assume F-decision to have much to do with immediate situation. Mostly it is not about "what I want now". This would be immature. We actually do think the long term consequences. If I want cookies and I know where my friend keeps them, I will think that if I stole them, he will get mad when he finds out. So I don't steal them.

The selfish talk is also relevant to immature F, not all F. The "normal" F likes to see people happy. He likes this even more than his personal satisfaction in an immediate situation, that way he can give away most of his cookies just to make people smile.

On a longer time line the selfishness could be seen in F-plans. At least for me, my own life is the most important thing in the world. I want to be happy and so on. But this isn't the kind of selfishness that takes something away from people, since for me to be happy I also need some folks to like me. I need people, I cant offend them too badly. So the selfishness comes out seeming like unselfishness and caring. But if you stuck me in a situation that I feel unhappy (for example being stuck with a girl that isnt for me) I will consider my personal happiness to be the important thing, not other people's feelings.

Yes feelers will share their cookies then when they have no cookies blame everyone for not taking into consideration that they gave all their cookies to you to make you happy but did so without considering the fact that you may not be in a place to replace the cookies at all. Then there is a bunch of hurt feelings and a situation that could have been easilly avoided if everyone just ate their own cookies and didn't try to make anyone happy without first objectively evaluating the situation beyond desire.